California: We Can Haz Gay Marriage!
May. 15th, 2008 11:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beautifulduckweedDudes! The California Supreme Court finally got off their asses and ruled 4-3 that prohibiting same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, going so far as to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is on the same legal footing as racial and gender bias.
Holy shit!
I mean, holy shit!
(The victory, however, is still provisional: Californians can still vote in November to put a same-sex marriage ban in the Constitution.)
The dissent by Judge Marvin Baxter agreed with many of the arguments set forth by the majority but argued that the court had overstepped its bounds and that this was an issue that should be decided by the voters.
No. No it shouldn't. When it comes to the rights of the minorities, the disenfranchised and the underprivileged, the voters and legislators are the worst bodies to determine and define those rights. Because guess what? There's a goddamn motherfucking turdburgling reason why these people are disenfranchised in the first place--the inequities exist because the majority are reluctant to put the disadvantaged on the same footing as they are. We've seen this over and over again with gender discrimination and racial discrimination; a lot of the rhetoric surrounding inter-racial marriage echoes what's being said about same-sex marriage now (It flies against everything we know to be wholesome and healthy! You're still allowed to marry, you just can't marry the one you want! You're violating traditional notions of family and marriage! You're violating the natural order [unspoken subtext: as determined by our interpretations of an ancient and highly unreliable sacred text supposedly revealed by a Judeo-Christian God]).
What I really want to know is: What kinds of traditional definitions of marriage are these people pulling out of their asses? Marriage, an institution based on legal and cultural traditions, changes with the times, and attempting to point to an arbitrary point in the past and go "Here, HERE'S where the real traditional marriage is, and we should freeze it there forever" strikes me as, if you'll pardon my French, plein de motherfucking merde.
Holy shit!
I mean, holy shit!
(The victory, however, is still provisional: Californians can still vote in November to put a same-sex marriage ban in the Constitution.)
The dissent by Judge Marvin Baxter agreed with many of the arguments set forth by the majority but argued that the court had overstepped its bounds and that this was an issue that should be decided by the voters.
No. No it shouldn't. When it comes to the rights of the minorities, the disenfranchised and the underprivileged, the voters and legislators are the worst bodies to determine and define those rights. Because guess what? There's a goddamn motherfucking turdburgling reason why these people are disenfranchised in the first place--the inequities exist because the majority are reluctant to put the disadvantaged on the same footing as they are. We've seen this over and over again with gender discrimination and racial discrimination; a lot of the rhetoric surrounding inter-racial marriage echoes what's being said about same-sex marriage now (It flies against everything we know to be wholesome and healthy! You're still allowed to marry, you just can't marry the one you want! You're violating traditional notions of family and marriage! You're violating the natural order [unspoken subtext: as determined by our interpretations of an ancient and highly unreliable sacred text supposedly revealed by a Judeo-Christian God]).
What I really want to know is: What kinds of traditional definitions of marriage are these people pulling out of their asses? Marriage, an institution based on legal and cultural traditions, changes with the times, and attempting to point to an arbitrary point in the past and go "Here, HERE'S where the real traditional marriage is, and we should freeze it there forever" strikes me as, if you'll pardon my French, plein de motherfucking merde.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-15 07:45 pm (UTC)Word.
Slightly O/T: let me just say how much I appreciate that you actually swear in French after saying "pardon my French". Not many people have that kind of linguistic integrity.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-15 08:00 pm (UTC)srsly, wow, this is wonderful.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-16 01:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-15 08:22 pm (UTC)No, this doesn't yet go far enough: the primary reason at this point that they would marry is for immigration purposes, but since their marriage wouldn't be federally recognized, it's not the same usefulness right now. BUT STILL.
Edit, for clarification: Uncle Ramon is Filipino, and they have had no end of trouble finding ways to keep him in this country.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-15 11:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-16 05:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-17 04:52 pm (UTC)Hilariously, the Governator agrees with you - although he maintains that his personal view is the one man one woman blah blah, he also says he doesn't want to force anyone else to agree. To wit:
"When the people vote, people are not legal experts, constitutional experts or any of that," he said. "I think that's why we have the courts. People may vote with good intentions, but then the court says, 'This is not constitutional.'
"It's not that the court interferes with the will of the people," he added. "But the court says, 'You voted for something, but it's not constitutionally right, so let's rework this.' That's really the idea."
Thank heavens, he also opposes this ridiculous potential state constitutional amendment.
OH HEY - so there's a 30 day waiting period before the new licenses are available to be used, which makes it fall on our wedding day! What a great anniversary to have.